Charles Moore's reflections on the week
John Howard, four times Prime Minister of Australia, is one of the great men of our time — direct, amusing, patriotic, moderate but tough-minded. He finally lost an election this year, which had the good effect of giving him some time in London recently. One of the Howard lessons is that when you get into office for the first time you must have a very nasty budget straightaway. Only at the start will you have the moral authority to tackle the vast public spending you have inherited. Mr Howard has been telling this to our own Conservatives. They know he is right, but they do not altogether like hearing it. Gordon Brown’s solution is to pretend that there is nothing seriously wrong with government spending, so if the Tories win next time the problem will be even bigger than it is today. What should be cut, and what other ways of raising revenue should be considered? Some cuts popular with those who know include regional development authorities, education maintenance allowances and the preposterous amounts spent on Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Another problem is the vast spending on overseas aid. The Conservatives, unfortunately, are committed to it, for goody-goody reasons, but perhaps they could redirect it so that, contrary to the present law, it can be permitted to advance British interests. I would also throw in the windfall (see last week’s Notes) of abolishing the London Olympics. The biggest public sector problem is pay, which is probably best dealt with by breaking it down to departmental budgets, so that each has to decide whether to keep pay levels down or sack people. Then there is the possibility of spreading VAT to everything, including children’s shoes, newspapers and food, which would mean that the same revenue could be raised by dropping the rate from its current 17.5 per cent to 12.5 to 13 per cent. Alternatively, the tax could be kept only on existing items, but the rate pushed up to 20 per cent, imitating, less dramatically, what Geoffrey Howe did in 1979, when he all but doubled the rate. The Tories will not tell you much about this, for obvious reasons (note the hole in David Cameron’s speech on the economy this week), but theirs will be the worst public spending inheritance since 1979, so, if they want a second term, cuts there must be.
More articles from: Charles Moore | this section
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Spectator readers respond to recent articles
The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Pre-Budget Report (PBR) was one of the most arresting political events of modern times.
Social networking: surely that has to be a tautology?
Tamzin Lightwater's unique take on the week
In his speech announcing his Pre-Budget Report, Alistair Darling said that he was going to put up the top rate of income tax to 45 per cent from 2011, because he wanted the burden to be borne by ‘those who have done best out of the growth of the past decade’.
Fraser Nelson reviews the week in politics
‘A money-financed tax cut is essentially equivalent to Milton Friedman’s famous “helicopter drop” of money.’ So said Ben Bernanke, now the chairman of the Fed, in a speech about how to ward off the ‘extremely small’ chance of deflation, which he delivered in 2002.
Spectator readers respond to recent articles
The Spectator on tax cuts
Fraser Nelson reviews the week in politics
Subscribe to Sky from £16 a month. Get free equipment and free broadband - Join Now. Sky HD - be amongst the first to have it - order now.
Subscribe to Sky from £16 a month. Get free equipment and free broadband - Join Now. Sky HD - be...
PORTA METRONIA, ROME Standing high on the top of one of the seven hills of Rome- the Coelian- this unique
ROME and PARIS: over 350 holiday rentals apartments listed: visit www.romanreference.com and www.parisreference.com or call +39 0648 903612.
Goldsmiths by Design Welcome to Ruffs! You have found a company of Goldsmiths that specialises in the manufacture, amongst other
Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine
Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2008 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
Michael Charles
July 21st, 2008 11:53amOne would have to argue with the EU if one wanted to abolish regional development agencies. And Dave is scared of the EU.
Theodore C. George
July 27th, 2008 6:32amIn fact, the Judaeo-Christian scriptural foundation for condemning homosexuality is so slim as to be almost non-existant. Not in the Ten Commandments, not in the Sermon on the Mount, nowhere in the Gospels, Jesus never mentions it and is very little concerned with sexual matters at all. Leviticus condemns dozens of "abominations" e.g. diet, dress, grooming. Sexual obsessions came hundred of years later in (changeable) Church doctrine.